Last post on Feb 22, 2009 at 9:11 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Classic Cars, Coupe, Convertible, Truck, Sedan, Wagon
#5 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [texases]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 04, 2008 (8:22 am)
Well sure, a new 2008 Minivan could probably have won the 1954 Grand Prix of Monaco, but so what? I fully realize and understand why, in this fast paced stressful world, the appeal of driving a 2008 "isolation chamber" is a strong one, but like all compromises, you gain something and you lose something.
I don't miss dripping convertible tops, whimpy windshield wipers and mushy bias ply tires, but I'm more than tempted to fix up a 60s cars nonetheless as my everyday driving, with "improvements".
#6 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 04, 2008 (8:44 am)
I'm so used to the mild clatter and whine that comes from my fintail much of the time, I can give a good guess of speed simply by sound.
There's something involving about driving a car that makes noises and requires inputs...like you are actually doing something. I suspect this is why many performance oriented drivers of modern cars modify the exhausts, to at least feel there is something going on.
#7 of 34 I think modern cars in general...
Nov 04, 2008 (9:07 am)
have just gotten too "good", so that it just becomes increasingly hard to really stand out. I'm sure nowadays it's not hard to get a V-6/automatic Accord, Camry, or Altima to hit 0-60 in the low 6 second range. So if you have some high-profile car that can do it in 5, it just doesn't seem that big of a deal. Even though it takes much more effort to make a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds, compared to 6!
But back in the day, if you had a musclecar that would do 0-60 in, say, 7 seconds, that was pretty impressive. FWIW, Consumer Reports tested a 1969 or so Charger with a 440-4bbl, relatively mild 3.23:1 rear end, and an automatic tranny. They got 0-60 in 7 seconds, so I'm sure C&D or MT would've been able to get it down to under 6. But in 1969, your typical intermediate or full-sized family car with a small V-8 typically took 10-15 seconds to hit 0-60 (CR got 10 seconds out of a late 60's Coronet 318, and around 14.5 out of a '68 Impala with a 307/automatic), and most 6-cyl domestics were 15 seconds or more. Heck, some foreign cars, like the old VW Bug, could take 30 seconds to hit 0-60!
#8 of 34 Re: For the love of a Classic muscle car [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 04, 2008 (9:54 am)
There has been definite progress in the automotive world since the 60s. Modern cars handle infinitely better than those of the muscle car era, they brake far more effectively, they pollute less, they are far more reliable, and the average family sedan would embarrass a number of "muscle cars" of the day.
However, automakers have engineered most of the "character" out of a car (especially Toyota and Lexus). Case in point, the Camry is arguably one of the best sedans produced and gives tremendous Bang for the Buck, but most car enthusiasts wouldn't be caught dead in one, because the car is about as exciting and passionate as watching grass grow...(no offense to the grass...). In their Relentless Pursuit of Perfection, many automakers have gutted out the soul of the car reducing it to a well-built appliance. Some automakers still "get it" however (Mazda for example) and make a car that has all of the benefits of modern design but is still entertaining to drive.
I agree with Shifty about restoring a 60s car, but with improvements. You really are merging the best of both worlds, by taking advantage of modern suspension, braking, and power trains and incorporating it into the design and style of a vintage car.
#9 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [andre1969]
Nov 04, 2008 (10:02 am)
It's funny that my fintail with its little FI 2.2l (ca. 140 cubic inch) I6 can do 0-60 in maybe 12 seconds...but it revs a lot higher than an old V8, no doubt.
#10 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [fintail]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 04, 2008 (11:14 am)
yeah but you'd have to thrash it---don't do that! Let it take the full 15 seconds.
#11 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 04, 2008 (12:33 pm)
Oh, it likes to be revved. Gotta make it kick out some black smoke now and then
But really, I think it can do 0-60 in under 15, by a couple seconds anyway. I've never really felt the car was having a hard time merging onto a highway...but then again people here like to dawdle their way onto an interstate at 38mph.
#12 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [fintail]
Nov 04, 2008 (12:46 pm)
It seems like German hp are different than American hp. Our '84 Jeep Cherokee 4cyl supposedly had about 105 hp, IIRC, but performed nothing like the '84 Audi 5000 with very similar rated hp, and similar weight. The Jeep was a slug!
#13 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [texases]
Nov 04, 2008 (12:56 pm)
Our '84 Jeep Cherokee 4cyl supposedly had about 105 hp, IIRC, but performed nothing like the '84 Audi 5000 with very similar rated hp, and similar weight. The Jeep was a slug!
Was that the old AMC lump of an inline-4, or the Pontiac Iron Duke lump of an inline-4? I think either way, they only had about 85-90 hp. It probably hit that peak around 4000-4400 rpm, and then dropped off fast. I don't know if Jeep was still using Chrysler 3-speed torqueflites by that time, but if they were, that was probably another strike against it. That same transmission could probably handle a 318-4bbl or a 360-2bbl, so a little 2.5 4-cyl probably had to work its little ass off to spin that transmission. I think they also had to use an adaptor kit to make the Torqueflite mate up to the 4-cyl, so that probably sapped some power as well.
My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of an Audi 5000, but I forget what kind of 0-60 time they got out of it. Probably 11-12 seconds. Well they also had a couple Jeeps in there. One was a 2.5/stick shift, while the other was a Chevy 2.8/3-speed auto, and I think the 4-cyl was actually quicker! Both times were around 17-18 seconds, though. (keep in mind that CG is sort of like CR, where their times are more conservative than what you might get with MT or C&D)
#14 of 34 Re: I think modern cars in general... [andre1969]
Nov 04, 2008 (1:42 pm)
"One was a 2.5/stick shift, while the other was a Chevy 2.8/3-speed auto, and I think the 4-cyl was actually quicker! Both times were around 17-18 seconds, "
17-18 sounds about right. Mine was the 2.5/stick shift, I got it for that exact reason, just as 'fast' as the 2.8/auto. My spreadsheet shows an '84 Audi at about 11 secs 0-60.